CubColtPacer

Remember that the last time it wasn't just a hometown discount though. It also gave Pujols long-term security. Plus he was still three years from free agency when he signed his last deal. It's also interesting to note that the Cardinals deferred money to sign Pujols to his last deal. They already are paying him until 2029.

Coello could be interesting. He's only pitched for 4 years so it's not surprising he still has some control issues (he was a catcher before that). He also looks to have all 3 options remaining. Here's a scouting report: http://www.soxprospects.com/players/coello-robert.htm

If the Cardinals are not willing to increase payroll, they're in a very difficult position. Obviously they need Pujols really badly. But at the same time, signing him to a 30 million a year deal means they between him and Holliday they only have 50-55 million left for the other 23 players. Next year they would have 3/4 of their payroll tied up in 5 players (and that involves them dumping both Carpenter and Molina). They haven't shown enough of a commitment to their system to support that kind of philosophy. If Pujols were coming from another team, there is no way that the Cardinals could even think about signing him to that big of a deal. With the effect on the fanbase of him leaving, it becomes much more complicated.

I love long extra inning games and all the roster decisions that come with it. In fact, I'll turn on a random game that I wasn't interested in before if I see that the game is in the 13th-15th inning. I also hate ties so IMO this suggestion would be horrible. And I think most fans would agree with me when comparing two All-Star games. The 14 inning game a couple years ago was considered one of the best ever. Meanwhile, the tie in the 2002 All-Star game was met with outrage.

Hamilton was 25 at the time. He was a #1 pick who had barely played in several years. He was just a random name that had promise a long time ago. Matt Bush has the same profile now and nobody's beating down the door of TB to get him.

The cubs wouldn't have drafted Hamilton due to character concerns. The hamilton trade was the offseason of the bad guy purge. No, it wasn't. The Hamilton trade was the Cubs spending splurge offseason. The main guy they got rid of that offseason was Pierre and that certainly wasn't because of character concerns.

It depends on which Pena shows up. 1B for the Cubs was a black hole last year to the tune of a .254/325/.397. If Pena 2010 shows up, him and his backups will probably be around the same. If the Pena of several of the years before that show up that position will be a whole lot better. Even if he's in between and puts up a .790 OPS the Cubs can probably get a .775 OPS overall out of first base. Over a 50 point upgrade is certainly meaningful.

Ugh. To defend that comment a little bit, I think she's probably talking about all the questions about trying out Soto at 1st or 2nd in the lineup. Is it still poor philosophy? Sure. But I don't think that she ever meant by her comment that Soto should stay at the bottom of the order.

I don't see how that offense is slightly below average. Last year's team was a little below average offensively and you have two major upgrades (Pena over Lee and Ramirez being a ton better). Then you have Castro being better and DeWitt being the same which is an upgrade over what Theriot gave the Cubs last year. To counter that, you only have 1 position getting worse. If all that goes true, the Cubs are probably a top 5 offense.

Too valuable in the pen, too many question marks about being able to start a full season, lots of decent starting options for 1 spot. I feel bad for him, but transitioning him to the rotation would be a major mistake at this point. Even if I knew he was going to be successful (4.00 ERA, 180 innings for example) I'm not sure I would do it because it blocks the young pitching even further (especially someone like Cashner) and hurts the bullpen so much.

early December.

Is that true? If the Bears have already paid him 6 mill in year 1, is his cap number really 5 mill for 2011? No, it isn't. It probably is between 1.75 and 2.

I agree with you. But the old player skills/young player skills argument doesn't. Doesn't Crawford have young player skills? Avg/contact, speed, defense. Now, I would think that speed and defense are the first to go in old age - so then why are they more valuable and projectable? Jim Edmonds had old player skills - OBP, power, lumbery. Yet, we was able to stick into his late 30s. Can someone please give me a run-down of this argument before I go cross-eyed? Beertown, I'm not sure what you're asking. We're in agreeance on Crawford having young player skills. That's why I brought him up: I think it's a risk to give him that type of contract at his age. Him and Cliff Lee were brought up to show that other teams spent bigtime money on players other than just the Nats. (granted, I also think the Red Sox have the luxury of this, because they develop enough cheap guys to put around their expenditures) But I do think his contract will be a hindrance the last couple of years of it. And I think someone like Pujols who's strengths are clearly not based on speed or even playing a premium defensive position. You're buying his OBP and his SLG. And those skills in a player his size should hold up better than what speed typically does in a guy hiting his mid 30's for instance. You and I agree, but there is a school of thought (to which I alluded) that disagrees. I was inviting someone to defend it. I think the thought is that people who only have old player skills in their primes typically have bad conditioning and won't age well. So even though players with young player skills will lose a step as they age, they still will be in good condition with their bodies and will age better than the pure power hitter who once their natural skills start to erode they really can't make up for it. A guy like Edmonds had plenty of both types of skills which helped him age gracefully. Pujols should be the same way.

Why? I'd like more wins as much as anyone right now, but I'm willing to give the guy some time. Like I said earlier, this team needs to start showing more progress next year. Hopefully another year of experience, health (hopefully), and adding a good post player will do that. You can't ask for much more in what is lined up for 2012 and beyond. If IU is still playing this in two years I'll be concerned. I think the worst is behind them at this point. So if he misses the tournament next year he's not in any danger? And buy out the last 6 years of his contract? Indiana signed Crean to a ridiculous extension for no reason, even if he didn't have the great recruiting classes lined up, he wouldn't be in danger. Whoa, did they at least get a reduced rate on the buyout? From what I've seen, if IU were to fire Crean in the next 2-3 years the buyout would be 3 million. It goes down as the years go on.

Why? I'd like more wins as much as anyone right now, but I'm willing to give the guy some time. Like I said earlier, this team needs to start showing more progress next year. Hopefully another year of experience, health (hopefully), and adding a good post player will do that. You can't ask for much more in what is lined up for 2012 and beyond. If IU is still playing this in two years I'll be concerned. I think the worst is behind them at this point. So if he misses the tournament next year he's not in any danger? And risk losing the great 2012 class? Not likely at all. Two years from now is when Crean is going to have to have a very good team. It could happen if there is a losing season combined with some sort of scandal, but that's about it.

Oh well. You play 4 really close games in a row like that and you expect to go 2-2. Oladipo's tip just went to the exact wrong spot. A little softer and it goes in and a little harder and Sheehey catches it for the game winning layup.

He's been much more than an average recruiter at IU. It's actually been an amazing recruiting job. His in-game coaching is still very questionable though. Amazing is a bit of a stretch. It'll be 3 full recruiting years before he brings in a difference maker to a program that recruits itself. Depends on what you define as difference maker. Watford and Creek have both proven themselves to be worthy top 50 recruits (although Creek is of course nowhere near that now with the injuries). To then have 5 probable top 25 players coming in the next 4 years is pretty strong for a team who isn't good yet. Indiana hasn't consistently had that level of recruits in a long, long time. If the school can sell itself, why hasn't it been able to in so many years? In response to Andy's comment, Crean had exactly 1 returning player and that was a walk on. The school was also on probation and had recruiting restrictions. That isn't as bad as it can get, but it's pretty close.

He's been much more than an average recruiter at IU. It's actually been an amazing recruiting job. His in-game coaching is still very questionable though.

i watched that play again and no, it doesn't look like that to me at all. plus he's quite obviously not going for rodgers' arm, he's just charging at him fast and hitting him. he could have avoided a penalty by lowering his head and initiating the tackle at rodgers' chest or waist level; instead he led with his head and that was the first thing to make contact (with rodgers' head). Rodgers turns his head into Peppers on the play. Only in the sense that Rodgers turns his head slightly to look more straight downfield. Even if Rodgers doesn't turn his head, Peppers is going to hit his helmet. It might have just been a fraction of a second later.

Luckily, us IU fans have a thread full of Illini tears to fall back on. Do I really need to go back and quote all the final 4 predictions you guys had? Almost as hilarious as your ambitious NIT berth dreams this year. The only thing foolish about thinking IU would have had an NIT berth was not realizing that the reports about Creek's health simply weren't true. Their best player became their worst player. That's a big difference for a team who's likely going to fall about 3 wins short of that NIT berth.

Watford will need surgery now for his broken left hand. If Jones isn't back, I have no idea where Indiana is going to turn to for scoring.

Weak. Good it was a cheapshot. Shouldn't have even been a penalty. Hit his shoulder, glanced into the helmet. I just looked at the slow mo close up shot again and it did not hit shoulder first or just glance into the helmet. In fact, I have it paused where the C on the helmet is pushed up against the side of Rodgers chin. It was a classic helmet to helmet hit that should have been fined. But it wasn't likely intentional so I agree with just the small fine.

The free agent comment is kind of strange. In the last 4 drafts, the Cubs have had 2 extra supplemental picks and have lost 1 second round pick. Their days of giving up draft picks for free agents are long gone.

Death goes a long way for ratings When was the last time there was a death in a major auto race? I don't follow the sport, so maybe it's been more recent than I realize. Earnhardt in 01. There were several deaths in the years right before that but since then there's only been a couple of deaths in practice for any of the major series.

It doesn't mean they have the same popularity. It just means they have the same number of ultra dedicated fans. Obviously golf and tennis have many more fans than track and field or bowling do but most of those fans aren't going to see them as their absolute favorite sport.